SUPERFUND FINAL CLOSE-OUT REPORT 

HYDE PARK LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE 

NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region II 

New York, New York 

August 2012 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION ... .... .... .... .... .. ......... ......... .. ........... ................................................................. 1 

II. SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS .. .... ........................................ ........................................ 1 

Site Location and Description ................. ... .... ...... .. ..... ............................. ... .................................... 1 

Site Background ..... ........................... ............................................... ....................... ..... ..... .............. 1 

Remedy Selection ............ ..... .. .. ............................................................................... ....... ... .............. 3 

Remedial Construction Activities ........................... .......................................... .. ............................. 3 

Institutional Controls ......... ................................................................................................... .... ...... 8 

Pre-final and Final Inspection .................................................. ........................ .. ......... ................. 12 

Explanation of Significant Differences .............................. ............... ..... ...................................... 12 

Community Involvement Activities ............................ .; ...... ............................ .......... .................... 12 

III. MONITORING RESULTS .. .................................. .............. ................................................ .. 13 

IV. SUMMARY OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .. ........... ............. ........................... 18 

V. DEMONSTRATION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL. ... ................. 18 

VI. FIVE-YEAR REVIEWS .................... .. ................................... .. .. ........ .. ..... ....... .. ........... ........ 18 

VII. SITE COMPLETION CRITERIA ... ............................... ............. ................ .......... ..... .. ......... 19 

VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................................................... 20 
I. INTRODUCTION 

SUPERFUND FINAL CLOSE-OUT REPORT 

Hyde Park Landfill Superfund Site 

Niagara County, New York 

This Final Close-Out Report documents that the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(EP A) has determined that all appropriate response actions for the Hyde Park Landfill Superfund 

Site (Site) have been completed in accordance with the Close-Out Procedures for National 

Priorities List Sites (OSWER Directive 9320.2-09 A-P, January 2000). 

In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (1980) (CERCLA) and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 

(SARA), responsible parties and others have implemented all appropriate response actions 

selected in the 1986 Enforcement Decision Document and the 2012 Explanation of Significant 

Differences. 

II. SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS 

Site Location and Description 

The Hyde Park Landfill Site (Site), approximately 15 acres in area, is located northwest of the 

City of Niagara Falls in the northwest corner of the Town of Niagara. The neighborhood 

surrounding the Site is mixed industrial and residential. The Niagara River, an international 

water body, is located 2000 feet northwest of the Site in the Niagara Gorge which descends 

approximately 350 feet below the surface of the landfill. A Site location map is presented as 

Figure 1 and a Site plan is presented as Figure 2. 

Background 

Hooker Chemical and Plastic Corporation, now Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC), 

disposed of approximately 80,000 tons of chemical wastes at the Hyde Park Landfill from 1953 

to 1975, primarily chlorobenzenes. Trichlorophenol (TCP) still bottoms were disposed of at the 

Site and approximately 0.7 - 1.6 tons of dioxin (2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin or TCDD) 

are believed to have been associated with these TCP wastes. 

The geology underlying the Site is glacial overburden overlying Lockport Dolomite, a fractured 

rock. The overburden is relatively impermeable and approximately 0 to 30 feet thick. Bloody 

Run Creek is a drainage channel that flows from the northwest corner of the landfill directly 

north, into storm sewers discharging to the Niagara Gorge and Niagara River. The bedrock is 

composed of various layers: beginning with the Lockport Dolomite, a fractured Karst formation 

(approximately 100 feet thick); followed by the Rochester Shale (60 feet thick); the 

IrondequoitlReynales Limestone Formation (Intermediate Formation); and, ending with the 

Queenston Shale (Deeper Formation). 

-1-
The groundwater in the overburden moves toward the northwest and strongly downward into the 

bedrock. The groundwater in the bedrock moves downward and laterally, primarily in the 

northwest direction toward the Gorge Face, which acts as a natural drain. Some of the 

groundwater emerges from the bedrock at the Gorge Face in the form seeps which flow into the 

Niagara River. 

Chemicals migrate from the landfill in two phases: (1) chemicals dissolved in the groundwater 

called aqueous phase liquids or "APL" and (2) a denser than water phase like a viscous sludge in 

appearance which migrates under the influence of gravity called non-aqueous phase liquid or 

"NAPL". 

APL and NAPL migrate from the landfill, creating two separate contamination plumes in the 

overburden and the bedrock. The Bloody Run drainage area was contaminated as a result of 

infiltration of surface runoff while the landfill was still operating, and not from the movement of 

groundwater from the landfill. 

EP A filed a lawsuit in 1979 under the authority of the Clean Water Act to require acc to 

remediate the Site. EPA, NY State and acc filed a Settlement Agreement in January 1981 

which the Court approved in April 1982. The Settlement Agreement set forth the scope of the 

investigation acc was to perform in order to characterize the nature and areal and vertical 

extent of the APL and NAPL plumes in both the overburden and the bedrock. acc has been 

implementing the Settlement Agreement under government oversight since 1982. The Aquifer 

Survey (the equivalent of a remedial investigation) was conducted by Conestoga-Rovers & 

Associates (CRA). The Aquifer Survey required that wells be installed along vectors emanating 

from the landfill and that samples be taken from these plume definition wells to describe the 

migration of indicator or marker chemicals from the landfill. The compounds identified below 

were defined as marker chemicals in the Settlement Agreement along with action levels in terms 

of concentration. If any of the marker compounds exceeded the action levels specified in the 

Settlement Agreement, then that well was considered to be within the extent of the aqueous 

phase plume and another well further out along that vector would be drilled until none of the 

marker compounds showed levels in excess of the action level in any water bearing zone. In this 

way, the extent of the aqueous phase plume could be determined. As part of the Aquifer 

Survey, acc sampled and analyzed groundwater monitoring wells in the bedrock and 

overburden at and surrounding the Site for conductivity, pH, chloride and total organic carbon, 

as well as the following marker compounds: total organic halogen, phenol, monochlorobenzene, 

monochlorotoluenes, trichlorobenzenes, tetrachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene, 

hexachlorocyclopentadiene, monochlorobenzotrifluorides, 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, and, 

hexachlorocyclohexane. In addition, acc sampled sediments in the Bloody Run and the 

Niagara Gorge for the following parameters: monochlootoluenes, mono chI oro benzene, 2, 4, 5-

trichlorophenol, and, hexaclorobenzene. acc completed the Aquifer Survey in 1983. The 

results of the Aquifer Survey were used to determine the extent of the APL and NAPL plumes in 

both the overburden and the bedrock. 

In 1986, after extensive negotiations, EPA, New York State and acc agreed on the Requisite 

Remedial Technology (RRT) Stipulation approved by the Buffalo, New York, District Court, 

which decreed the remedies for the cleanup of the Site. 

-2-
Remedy Selection 

EP A issued an Enforcement Decision Document (EDD - the equivalent of what today is called a 

Record of Decision) in November 1985 selecting the following remedial actions: 

• Source Control (prototype extraction wells); 

• Containment and collection of APL (Aqueous Phase Liquid) and NAPL (Non-Aqueous 

Phase Liquid) in the overburden of the aquifer; Containment and collection of APL and 

NAPL in the bedrock; 

• Treatment of collected APL and NAPL; 

• Community Monitoring Program (peripheral monitoring wells for early detection of 

migration of Site chemicals); 

• Intermediate and Deep Formations Study (monitoring wells); 

• Industrial Protection Program (remediation of sumps and sealing of manholes); 

• Perimeter Capping (clay cap around perimeter of landfill); 

• Gorge Face Seeps Remediation; 

• 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Bioaccumulation Study in Lake Ontario; 

• Bloody Run Excavation or Capping; and, 

• Final Capping and Site Closure. 

The primary objective of the remedy selected in the EDD is to prevent the migration of 

contaminants from the Site through collection and treatment of the affected media. 

Remedial Construction Activities 

OCC has been implementing the requirements of the EDD and Requisite Remedial Technology 

(RRT) Stipulation since 1986. OCC utilizes CRA as its contractor. CRA conducted the 

remedial design in a phased approach from 1986 through 2002. CRA would install several 

extraction wells, their associated infrastructure, and monitoring wells. These wells were pump 

tested and operated. Groundwater elevations were taken to determine if the wells supplied 

sufficient capture for Site-related contaminants. If sufficient capture was not attained, additional 

extraction wells, their associated infrastructure, and monitoring wells would be installed until 

OCC, EPA and New York State determined that capture had been achieved. 

Since the remedy was designed and installed in a phased approach, there is not just one remedial 

design document, but a series of remedial design documents for each aspect of the remedy. All 

design documents were reviewed and approved by EPA, the New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the New York State Department of Health 

(NYSDOH). 

CRA has also conducted the remedial action on behalf of OCC under the oversight of EPA, 

NYSDEC and NYSDOH. 

-3-
Source Control 

The purpose of the source control program is to reduce the contamination migrating downward 

from the landfill by removing mobile NAPL remaining in the landfill. The source control 

remedial program, as described in the RRT Stipulation, consists of a prototype system of up to 

six 36-inch diameter wells installed in the overburden inside the landfill. Figure 3 presents the 

locations of the source control wells. 

As required by the RRT, OCC installed two 36-inch extraction wells in the landfill in 1990. 

OCC performed pump tests on these wells and also investigated potential NAPL source areas 

within the landfill through 1993. However, the large-diameter source-control wells did not 

collect as much NAPL as was expected. The source control system was redesigned using the 

extraction well design OCC had successfully utilized at its Durez facility in Niagara Falls. OCC 

installed four 2-inch source control wells in the landfill with two-phase flow pumps to facilitate 

the pumping of NAPL. Nine monitoring wells were also installed in the landfill. One sourcecontrol well has since been converted to a monitoring well because of insufficient NAPL 

collection. 

NAPL extracted by source control wells flows into a decanter at the on-site Storage and 

Treatment Facility. The total recovered NAPL volume is measured monthly and the potential 

amount of NAPL contributed by each well is estimated annually by OCC. The source control 

wells are currently pumped only once per month because of insufficient NAPL volume. The 

source control wells were designed and installed by OCC and CRA under the oversight of EPA 

and NYSDEC. TAMS Consultants (now Earthtech) performed oversight for EPA. Gerry 

Pietrezek, a NYSDEC Region 9 hydrogeologist, routinely conducted oversight. Matt Forcucci, 

NYSDOH Region 9, conducted oversight for NYSDOH. OCC and CRA issued the Source 

Control Assessment Report in September 1993. OCC reports the amount ofNAPL removed by 

the source control well in the Hyde Park RRT Program Annual Monitoring Report. 

Overburden - APL and NAPL Plume Containment System 

The goal of the remedy selected for the overburden and stated in the RR T Stipulation, is to 

contain the lateral migration of the NAPL plume and contain the APL plume, to the extent 

practicable. The remedy was implemented by construction of the Overburden Barrier Collection 

System (OBCS), a drain around the entire landfill to contain and collect contaminated 

groundwater. The OBCS was installed in 1991. Figure 4 presents the location of the OBCS. 

Eight well pairs were installed beyond the alignment of an existing drain around the landfill. 

One well from each pair is inside the APL plume limits and one well from each pair is outside 

the APL plume. The inner wells are pumped to create an inward hydraulic gradient. Hydraulic 

stabilization was deemed to have occurred in 1994, following one year of continuous dewatering 

of the OBCS (i.e., no accumulation of water in the wet wells). 

-4-
The OBCS was designed and installed by CRA under the oversight of EPA, NYSDEC and 

NYSDOH. The OBCS remedial design document, Plans and Specifications for the Overburden 

Barrier Collection System, was issued by OCC and CRA and approved by EPA and NYSDEC 

in October 1994. OCC reports the results of the overburden monitoring in the Hyde Park RRT 

Program Quarterly Monitoring Report and the Hyde Park RRT Program Annual Monitoring 

Report. 

Bedrock NAPL Plume Containment System 

The NAPL Plume Containment System was designed to create an inward hydraulic gradient in 

the bedrock aquifer surrounding the landfill in order to capture groundwater contaminated by 

Site chemicals. The system was designed and installed in a phased approach in order to achieve 

proper placement of the extraction wells. The first set of wells were installed, pump tested and 

connected by force mains to the on-site treatment facility. The capture zones of the wells were 

evaluated, and based on the results of this evaluation, additional wells were installed in areas 

where capture was not being attained. The remedial design document, Plans, Specifications and 

Protocols, Well Installation Program, was issued by OCC and CRA and approved by EPA and 

NYSDEC in October 1989. 

Phase I, consisting of six purge wells, was installed for OCC by CRA in 1990 under the 

oversight of EPA, NYSDEC and NYSDOH. Two well nests of three wells each were installed in 

the upper, middle and lower units of bedrock. OCC conducted pump tests on individual and 

multiple wells throughout 1991. acc submitted to EPA and New York State a Phase I pump 

test report in February 1993. EPA and New York State approved OCc's recommendation for the 

location of Phase II purge and recirculation wells and required OCC to install two additional 

wells. The installation of the Phase II wells was completed in 1993. OCC conducted pump tests 

on the Phase II wells which were completed in 1994. The results of these pump tests indicated 

that further hydraulic control was necessary. Additional wells were installed and a network of 

eleven bedrock purge wells was operational in 1997. Figure 5 presents the locations of the 

bedrock purge wells. 

Bedrock APL Plume Containment System 

The APL Plume Containment System, consisting of three purge wells installed at the Niagara 

Gorge Face, was designed to collect a significant portion (60-88%) of the contaminated 

groundwater outside the NAPL plume (as required by the RRT). These wells were designed by 

CRA under the oversight of EPA and NYSDEC and installed in 1994. 

Leachate Storage and Treatment Facility 

APL is treated on-site at the Leachate Storage and Treatment Facility constructed by OCC which 

began operating in April 1990. The APLINAPL mixture is pumped from the wells through force 

mains into a decant tank. The NAPL, denser than water, settles to the bottom. APL is taken off 

the top of the decanter and pumped into the storage tanks. The APL first passes through 

sacrificial activated carbon beds (which cannot be recycled because of the dioxin and are 

disposed of off-site). The APL is then treated in an activated carbon system. 

-5-
oee and eRA designed and installed the Leachate Treatment Facility in 1989 to process 70 

gallons per minute (gpm) of influent. The facility began operating in April 1990. The 70 gpm 

treatment capacity proved insufficient as excess water (much of it clean) was entering the OBCS 

from the northwest. In 1997, a clay barrier wall was installed to the north and west of the OBes 

in an attempt to prevent the migration of clean groundwater from off-site to the collection system 

and the Leachate Treatment Facility was upgraded to 110 gpm. In 2001, OCC again increased 

the treatment capacity to 400 gpm to be able to adequately handle periods of large water volume. 

More than 30,000,000 gallons have been treated to date by the Hyde Park Leachate Treatment 

Facility. 

The Leachate Treatment Facility was designed and installed by oee and eRA under the 

oversight of EPA and NYSDEC. oee operates the facility according to the oee 2002 Hyde 

Park Collection and Aqueous Phase Leachate (APL) Treatment System Operation and 

Maintenance Manual. 

NAPL Treatment 

Before 1990, NAPL collected at the Site was stored in railroad tank cars because there was no 

commercial incinerator available to destroy these wastes. The RR T required oee to obtain a 

permit modification for its Buffalo Avenue Plant incinerator to burn wastes containing dioxins. 

The five years spent in obtaining the permit modification significantly delayed the remedial 

schedule for the Site. oee was issued this modification by EPA and NYSDEe in November 

1990. This was the first industrial incinerator permitted to bum dioxin. From 1990 until 1996, 

NAPL was transferred by tanker truck to OCc's Buffalo Avenue Plant in Niagara Falls for 

incineration. More than 250,000 gallons ofNAPL were incinerated at the Buffalo Avenue Plant. 

oce suspended incinerating NAPL at its Buffalo Avenue Plant in 1996. Subsequent to 

suspending this operation, OCC began transporting NAPL by truck to Laidlaw Environmental 

Services in Deer Park, Texas for incineration. To date, more than 300,000 gallons of NAPL 

have been removed from the Site and destroyed by incineration. 

Landfill Cap 

The Settlement Agreement required oce to cap the landfill with 36 inches of clay, with a 12-

inch vegetative cover. Before a final cap could be placed on the landfill, wastes associated with 

remedial activities had to be managed. OCC developed the Waste Disposal Plan, which was 

implemented in 1988. Waste disposal cells lined with clay were constructed on top of the 

landfill to consolidate wastes resulting from remedial actions and investigations conducted at the 

Site. Contaminated soils from investigative activities and sediment from the Bloody Run 

remediation were consolidated in the landfill. The perimeter cap of the landfill was completed in 

1991, and the entire landfill cap was completed in 1994. The final cap consisted of the 

following: low-permeability clay; a synthetic membrane; a drainage layer and topsoil seeded 

with native vegetation for barrier protection: EPA routinely inspects the landfill cap for erosion. 

The current condition of the cap is excellent. 

The remedial design document, Project Specification for Final Landfill Cap was issued by OCC 

and CRA in June 1994 and reviewed and approved by EPA and NYSDEC. The landfill cap was 

designed and installed by CRA under the oversight of EPA, NYSDEC and NYSDOH. 

-6-
Bloody Run Remediation 

The Bloody Run received drainage from the landfill prior to the implementation of any remedial 

measures. Residents living alongside contracted chloroacne, a skin disease, from exposure to the 

contaminated water. OCC relocated several families who lived next to this stream during the late 

1970s. 

The Settlement Agreement set forth two possibilities for remedial action at the Bloody Run, 

sediment excavation or capping. In 1992, EPA performed a risk assessment that determined the 

excavation of sediments in the Bloody Run would not pose an adverse risk to nearby residents, 

would be protective of human health, and was the preferred alternative. 

CRA excavated approximately thirty thousand cubic yards of contaminated sediment from the 

Bloody Run drainage area. The excavated sediment was consolidated with the waste in the 

landfill which was not yet closed. The excavated area was then backfilled and covered with 

riprap. A drainage catch basin was installed to replace the sewer outfall. OCC performed the 

required restoration work which included road and culvert replacement. Areas directly east and 

west" of the Bloody Run were covered with six inches of loam and six inches of topsoil and grass 

seed and mulch were applied. This work was completed in January 1993. The Bloody Run now 

flows via a storm sewer which surfaces at the Niagara Gorge. 

In May 1994, EPA and New York State approved the Final Construction Report: Bloody Run 

Excavation and Sewer Remediation. The restored area was observed by EPA during annual Site 

visits to have abundant vegetation. Data collected from monitoring wells located in this area 

demonstrate that there is no Site-related contamination present. Figure 6 presents the locations 

of the Bloody Run monitoring well locations. 

Niagara River Gorge Face Remediation 

Groundwater seeps from the rock at the Niagara Gorge, approximately 2000 feet from the Site. 

TCDD was detected in one sample from a seep during remedial investigations at 0.2 parts per 

trillion (ppt). EPA and New York State determined that fisherman and other recreational visitors 

to the Niagara Gorge should be isolated from the seeps to prevent an exposure pathway to the 

contaminants. The Niagara Gorge seeps were remediated in 1988, except for the Bloody Run 

portion, which was remediated in 1994. Access by fisherman and other recreational visitors to 

the seeps has been prevented by the installation of fences and the diversion of seeps into culverts. 

The objective of the Niagara Gorge remediation was not to remove any rock, but to remove 

sediments adhered to the rock. All contaminated sediments were scraped away and placed in a 

waste disposal cell at the landfill, prior to the installation of the final cap. EPA and New York 

State approved a report prepared by CRA documenting the Niagara Gorge remediation in March 

1988. 

Niagara River Gorge Seep inspections are conducted biannually by acc, CRA, EPA, NYSDEC 

and NYSDOH. These inspections are documented in the Biannual Gorge Seep Survey prepared 

by acc and CRA. No issues or recommendations have resulted from the bianuual inspections. 

-7-
On-Site Lagoon Remediation 

OCC remediated the on-site lagoons in 1991. NAPL in the lagoons was pumped into the 

leachate storage facility and the lagoons were closed. NAPL was also pumped into the Leachate 

Treatment Facility from four railroad tank cars which had been used on-site for several years as 

storage for NAPL generated from remedial investigations because there was no facility permitted 

to treat dioxin. In 1991, the tank cars were placed in the waste disposal cells. 

Institutional Controls 

A Declaration of Restrictive Covenants and Environmental Easement was placed on the deed to 

the Site property at the County recording office in Niagara County on October 7, 2010. The 

Grantor (Occidental) grants a permanent restrictive covenant and an environmental easement to 

the Grantee (Town of Niagara) to provide a right of access over the approximately 21-acre 

property (the "Property") for purposes of implementing, facilitating and monitoring the remedial 

action. The covenant/easement also imposes on the Property certain use restrictions that will run 

with the land for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment in the future . 

The following restrictions apply to the use of the Property, run with the land, and are binding on 

the Grantor: the Property shall not be used in any manner that would interfere with or adversely 

affect the implementation, integrity, or effectiveness of the remedial action performed at the Site, 

including, but not limited to: a) the extraction of on-site groundwater; b) any digging, 

excavation, extraction of materials, construction, or other activity outside the requirements of the 

remedial action that would disturb the cap placed upon the landfill at the Site; or c) other activity 

that would disturb or interfere with any portion of the remedial action for the Site enumerated in 

the RRT Stipulation. The Property also may not be used for residential use. However, the 

Property may be used for commercial or industrial use as long as long-term engineering controls 

are employed and remain effective. That is, specifically, the operation of the portion of the 

response action pertaining to the pumping of the extraction wells, the operation of the treatment 

facility, and maintenance of the landfill cap. 

In addition to the Site-specific institutional control, the Niagara County Department of Health 

imposes restrictions on the drilling and usage of wells at the Site. These restrictions ensure that 

drinking-water wells are not installed in areas of contaminated groundwater, effectively 

preventing exposure to Site-related contaminants through ingestion. 

Summary of Remedy Operation and Additional Studies Conducted 

The RR T Stipulation required a groundwater monitoring program for the bedrock aquifer with 

well locations selected along vectors radiating from the center of the landfill. The monitoring 

wells are located inside and outside the NAPL Plume. The RRT Stipulation stated that an 

inward gradient must be established across the NAPL plume boundary. However, 

implementation of the vector scheme has not proven to be an effective monitoring system. 

Practical considerations frequently impact the selection of well locations. Certain vectors are 

located in nonwater-bearing rock. Other vectors show a flat gradient. To enhance the vector 

monitoring scheme, with which OCC reports its site cleanup progress, local groundwater contour 

maps were developed. 

-8-
ace has implemented the bedrock hydraulic monitoring program since 1996. For the purpose 

of monitoring, the bedrock was divided into three separate flows zones: Upper Bedrock, Middle 

Bedrock and Lower Bedrock. Currently, there are 16 bedrock extraction wells in operation. The 

monitoring program established by the RRT Stipulation was not able to demonstrate an inward 

hydraulic gradient of the contaminated groundwater. 

Groundwater Modeling Study 

ace contracted S. S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc. (SSPA) to perform a detailed groundwater 

modeling study of the Site during 2000-2001 to address uncertainties with respect to 

groundwater flow. The Site is located in a very complex hydrogeologic setting and ace sought 

to formulate a conceptual model which synthesized data collected from the Site and the regional 

hydrogeologic setting. The model was used to evaluate the performance of the current bedrock 

remedial pumping system. Particle tracking was utilized to determine the capture zones of the 

existing bedrock wells. The model indicated that there was a vertical component of flow (i.e., 

some of the water from the Upper Bedrock zone was being captured in the Lower Bedrock 

zone). 

Groundwater model simulations using the flow rate data from the first quarter of 2001 indicate 

that 52.1 % of the Upper, 90.4% of the Middle, and 98.8% of the Lower Bedrock zone 

groundwater are being captured. 

Installation of Additional Wells in 2001 

ace used the results of the model to select the locations of six additional bedrock purge wells 

which were installed in 2001. EPA and NYSDEe approved the locations of these wells. ace, 

EPA and NYSDEC evaluated the complex water-level data to determine if an inward hydraulic 

gradient was being achieved by the current set of eighteen extraction wells. The analysis of the 

water-level data led aee to determine that the system of Upper, Middle and Lower Bedrock 

monitoring that utilized wells with long screening intervals, which were open over several flow 

zones, could not measure the groundwater capture at the Site with accuracy. 

Site Re-Characterization 

Subsequent to the development of the groundwater model, aee revised the Site conceptual 

model which provided the basis for the numerical simulation of the hydrogeologic system. aee 

conducted field investigations from 2001 to 2003, including down-borehole geophysics, waterlevel measurements in 113 piezometers. The analysis of the field data resulted in a revised 

hydrolgeologic framework consisting of eleven discrete flow zones separated by aquitards. ace 

has documented its revised hydrogeologic framework in two documents: Site Characterization 

Report: Revised Geologic and Hydrogeologie Characterization (February 2002) and Site 

Characterization Report: Hydrologic Characterization (February 2003). This report, dated 

February 2003, was produced for ace by Services Environmental, Inc.(SEI), SSPA and eRA. 

-9-
The eleven flow zones replace the Upper, Middle and Lower Bedrock framework formerly used 

at this Site. Groundwater monitoring has been conducted in the eleven flow zones since late 

2002 and OCC now has a post re-characterization data base of water-level measurements. 

After the geology at the Site was re-characterized, OCC produced a new groundwater model 

which assists in determining if the groundwater remedy provides capture of the contaminated 

water associated with the Site. Site Characterization Report: Groundwater Flow Model, dated 

June 2003, was prepared for OCC by SSPA. The results of the groundwater model indicate that 

capture of contaminated groundwater is achieved in the bedrock. 

OCC issued the Site Characterization Report: Remedial Characterization Report (RCR), 

prepared by SEI, SSPA and CRA in June 2003. The RCR concludes that the Bedrock NAPL 

Plume Containment System satisfies the performance objectives of the RRT (inward gradient). 

Although the data for two of the flow zones suggest some uncertainty in the inward gradient, 

chemical analyses of the groundwater from these two zones indicate that Site-related 

contaminants are not present. This indicates that no migration of contaminants outside of the 

containment system is occurring. acc will conduct additional studies to better define the areas 

of uncertainty. 

Lake Ontario TenD Bioaccumulation Study 

The RRT established APL Plume Flux Action Levels based on EPA's worst-case 

bioaccumulation assumptions for the following chemicals: TCDD (0.5 grams/year); 

perchloropentacyc1odecane [Mirex] (0.005 lbs/day); Aroc1or 1248 (0.005 lbs/day); and, 

chloroform (1.7 lbs/day). These action levels represent concentrations of these contaminants 

that, if detected entering the river (flux of contaminants to the river) at or above these 

concentrations, would require OCC to take additional remedial actions (e.g. increased pumping, 

installing additional wells or other remedial measures) to reduce these contaminant levels. The 

only parameter detected in 2001 was TCDD. OCC calculated the flux of TCDD to the Niagara 

River as 7.06 x 10-5 grams/year, which is several orders of magnitude below the Flux Action. 

EP A Region 2, New York State and OCC designed and implemented a work plan to collect fish 

and sediment samples from Lake Ontario and analyze them for TCDD. Lab studies were 

performed by the EPA Environmental Research Laboratory in Duluth, Minnesota and the 

University of Minnesota. The draft Lake Ontario TCDD Bioaccumulation Study was completed 

in July 1989 and distributed for scientific peer review. The final TCDD Bioaccumulation Study 

report reflecting the comments of the peer reviewers was released to the public in September 

1991. 

As part of this study, the EPA Large Lakes Research Station in Grosse Ile, Michigan, 

collaborated with the Manhattan College Department of Environmental Engineering to produce 

the Lake Ontario TCDD Modeling Report. A mass-balance model was developed based upon 

models of fallout radionuc1ides and PCB contamination of the Great Lakes. With the assistance 

of a panel of scientists convened by EPA, the model was refined and reparameterized for TCDD. 

-10-
The predicted steady-state TeDD concentrations for an input comparable to the TeDD APL 

Plume Flux Action Level of 0.5 grams/year are 0.026 nanograms/year (sorbed sediment 

concentrations) and 9.5 x 10-5 picograms/liter (water column dissolved concentration). 

The TeDD Study, together with the model, indicated that TeDD was bioaccumulating in the 

tissues of various species of Lake Ontario fish at a range of rates such that the overall TeDD 

APL Plume Flux Action Level of 0.5 grams/year stipulated by the RRT remains protective. 

The TeDD Study was performed as a partnership among EPA, NYSDEC, NYSDOH and OCC. 

The Gradient Corporation, Ecology and Environment, University of Michigan, EPA Large Lakes 

Research Station and, EPA Environmental Research Laboratory performed work on the TeDD 

Study for EPA. 

Community Monitoring Program 

The Community Monitoring Wells, a system of wells installed in 1987 throughout the 

neighborhood, provide early warning of the presence of Hyde Park contaminants in the 

groundwater. These wells are sampled and analyzed quarterly. The RRT included requirements 

for OCC to take further remedial action if should contamination be detected in this network of 

wells. 

Industrial Protection Program 

The Industrial Protection Program, implemented in 1987, established engineering controls to 

eliminate the exposure of nearby workers to contaminants present in the NAPL and APL plumes. 

Sumps and manholes in neighboring industries, including Grief Brothers (located directly downgradient from the landfill), were sealed, eliminating worker exposure to vapors that may migrate 

into the sump. OCC relocated a sewer at neighboring Tams Ceramics in 1989. The eollege 

Heights sewer was remediated in 1990. EPA and NYSDEC approved a report prepared by eRA 

documenting the College Heights sewer remediation in 1990. 

oee has recently purchased the Grief Brothers building. Future access to this facility is now 

controlled by OCC. Periodic surveys of neighborhood manholes and sumps are performed to 

ensure the remedies remain intact. 

Intermediate and Deep Bedrock Formations Study 

The Intermediate and Deep Formations Study was designed to determine if contaminants from 

the Site had penetrated the Rochester Shale (aquitard) formation below the Lockport Dolomite. 

If action levels documented in the RRT are exceeded in the Intermediate Formations, then 

monitoring wells will be installed in the Deep Formations. In addition, a total flux to the Niagara 

River is calculated, and if the Flux Action Levels are exceeded, further remedies would be 

required to reduce the loading to the river. 

Monitoring wells were installed by OCC and CRA in the intermediate formations in 1990 

without detecting the presence of NAPL. Most wells contained insufficient volumes of 

groundwater for sample collection after purging activities, indicating that the shale is a good 

-11-
aquitard. The Monitoring Report, Intermediate Formations Wells, November 199111992, 

prepared by OCC and CRA, summarizes the results of the investigation. Most of the parameters 

were not detected above the concentrations of Lower Formation Survey Parameters listed in the 

RRT Stipulation. However, phenol, total organic halogen, PCB-1248 and conductivity did 

exceed the survey levels. OCC calculated a flux in the monitoring report which was four to five 

orders of magnitude below the Flux Action Level. 

OCC was not required to install monitoring wells in the Deep Formations because the 

Intermediate Formations' investigation indicated that Site contaminants had not migrated 

through the shale and were not present in the Intermediate Formations. 

Explanation of Significant Differences 

EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) on May 7, 2012. This ESD has 

two components. The first component involves an institutional control, which is a nonengineered control to restrict or limit exposure to a hazardous substance. The EDD did not 

specify the implementation of institutional controls as a component of the selected remedy. The 

institutional control is in the form of a "Declaration of Restrictive Covenants and Environmental 

Easement" which was placed on the deed to the property on October 7,2010. 

The second component of the ESD included a discussion which clarified that the remedy selected 

in the EDD, and approved by the federal court, is a containment remedy and not an aquifer 

restoration remedy intended to restore the aquifer to its best beneficial use (i.e., a source of 

drinking water). 

The goal of the containment remedy for the Site is to prevent the migration of leachate and 

contaminated groundwater from the Site through capping, groundwater collection, NAPL 

collection and treatment of extracted groundwater and NAPL. Figure 9 presents an aerial view 

of the bedrock NAPL zone and the area of hydraulic containment. 

Community Involvement Activities 

EP A maintained a Public Information Office (PIO) in Niagara Falls, New York from 1984 

through 200l. Since 2001, EPA has maintained the PIO in Buffalo, New York. Site files are 

available in the PIO for public review. Many public meetings were held during the RRT 

negotiations and during the early stages of remedial action. Public meetings were held at 

Niagara University near the Site. EP A has held numerous public availability sessions at the 

Niagara Falls PIO where the project manager met with interested members of the public and 

discussed Site conditions in an informal setting. The PIO maintains a Site mailing list. 

Periodically, fact sheets and Site updates are mailed to the recipients on this list. 

Pre-final and Final Inspection 

On June 24, 2003, a pre-final inspection was conducted by EPA and NYSDEC. Based on the 

results of this inspection, it was determined that the construction for the entire Site was 

completed and that the implemented remedy was consistent with the EDD and RRT. A 

Preliminary Close-Out Report was signed in July 2003. 

-12-
OCC has operated the remedial systems at the Site maintaining hydraulic containment since 

2003. Subsequent to the placement of a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants and Environmental 

Easement on the Site in October 2010, a final inspection was conducted by EPA's Remedial 

Project Manager, Gloria M. Sosa, and OCC's Project Manager, Joseph Branch, on June 8, 2011. 

During the inspection, the EPA representative did not observe any problems or deviations from 

the ongoing operation and maintenance activities being implemented at the Site. The current 

condition of the cap is excellent. The fence surrounding the landfill is intact with no breaches. 

All the wells and associated infrastructure were functioning properly. Brian Sadowski, 

NYSDEC Region 9, inspected the Site with Joseph Branch on May 4,2011. 

III. MONITORING RESULTS 

The Performance Monitoring Plan, 2006, sets forth the requirements of the groundwater 

monitoring program. Monitoring consists of the Overburden Monitoring Program, the Bedrock 

Monitoring Program and the Community Monitoring Program. OCC documents that the 

containment remedy is achieving its performance requirements in the Annual Site Remedial 

Performance Evaluation Report, which also includes the Quarterly Reports. 

In order to demonstrate hydraulic containment of the APL and NAPL plumes, OCC must 

demonstrate that an inward hydraulic gradient across the APL and NAPL plumes in the 

overburden and the bedrock is maintained, as required by the RRT. 

Overburden Monitoring Program 

The Overburden Monitoring Program includes monitoring the source control wells and the 

OBCS. The overburden monitoring ensures that there is no lateral migration of NAPL or APL 

through the overburden. 

To date, the source control program has not yielded significant amounts of NAPL. Historical 

records indicate that 80,000 tons of wastes were landfilled. It is unknown how much NAPL was 

produced from these wastes. OCC has removed over 300,000 gallons of NAPL during the 

remedial action. In 2011,262 gallons ofNAPL were removed from the source wells. Due to the 

decreasing volumes of NAPL conducted in recent years, EPA believes that most of the NAPL 

that was once present in the overburden in the landfill has either flowed into the bedrock, been 

captured, or remains in pockets or pools that are not hydraulically connected to the source 

control wells. In addition, the installation of the final cap on the landfill has eliminated the 

continued production of leachate from rainfall, thereby dramatically reducing the hydraulic head 

and in turn reducing the driving force for the NAPL. 

-13-
Hydraulic monitoring of the OBCS is performed by water-level measurements taken at the eight 

well pairs. Water-level measurements indicate that an inward gradient is being achieved, thereby 

capturing the contaminated groundwater associated with the Site. In addition, NAPL has not 

been observed in any of the overburden monitoring well locations, indicating that the OBCS 

serves as a barrier to off-site NAPL migration. The overburden water-level measurements are 

used to generate an overburden groundwater potentiometric surface map. Figure 10 presents the 

overburden groundwater potentiometric surface map for the fourth quarter of 2011. Figure 10 

shows hydraulic containment in the overburden. These findings are documented in the 2011 

Annual Site Remedial Performance Evaluation Report. 

Bedrock Monitoring Program 

The Bedrock Monitoring Program includes monitoring the APL Plume Containment System, the 

NAPL Plume Containment System and the Bloody Run Creek Monitoring Program. 

The bedrock APL and NAPL Plume Containment Systems consist of 19 extraction wells that 

control the lateral and vertical migration of dissolved-phase contaminants and NAPL in the 

bedrock. The bedrock extraction well average monthly flow rates in 2011 were consistent with 

historic flow rates at the Site. The water-level elevations in the extraction wells indicate that 

these wells are operating at the pumping-level target set points. These set points maintain a 

water-level elevation that ensures that certain flow zones remain unsaturated. 

Groundwater-level measurements provided in Table 2 present the bedrock groundwater-level 

measurements for 2011. 

The bedrock water-level measurements are used to generate bedrock groundwater potentiometric 

surface maps for each of the nine monitored flow zones. The bedrock groundwater 

potentiometric surface maps for the nine monitored flow zones for the fourth quarter of 2011 are 

presented as Figures 11-17. The potentiometric maps for each monitored flow zone indicate 

hydraulic containment in the bedrock. 

NAPL Plume Monitoring Groundwater Sampling Results 

Groundwater samples were collected quarterly during 2011 annual sampling event as per the 

Performance Monitoring Plan and analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), organic acids, and sulfate. The parameters in the table 

below were the only parameters detected above their screening levels. All of the monitoring 

wells with exceedances of the screening values were located within the hydraulic capture zone. 

These exceedances are consistent with results from sampling events conducted in 2003, 2006, 

2007,2009, and 2010. 

2011 Bedrock Monitoring Program Results 

Site Organic Indicators Well Locations Exceeding SOl Screening Values 

(SOl) 

Chlorendic Acid AGW-IM-07, AGW-1M-09, AGW-IU-06, B2L-l1, DIM09, F2U-02, F2U-04, G6-04, 

-14-
H5-09, J6-07, F2M-09, H2U-02, Dl U-05, D2M-09, 06-05 

Benzene DIL-ll, DIM-09, E6-09, E6-11, F2L-ll, F6-11, OIL-II, 

06-04,06-05,06-11, H2M-09, 

H5-09, J6-11 

1,1 ,2,2-tetrachloroethane 06-01,06-02,06-04,06-05, H2M-06 

Tetrachloroethene 06-01, 06-02, 06-04 

Trichloroethene 01U-01 , 06-01 , 06-02, 06-04, 06-05, H2M-06 

Vinyl Chloride 06-01,06-02,06-04,06-05, H2M-06, H2U-02 

Cis-1 ,2-dichloroethene 06-02,06-04,06-05 

bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate E6-04, H2M06 

Non-Site Organic Indicators Well Locations Exceeding non-SOl Screening Values 

Benzo( a )pyrene B2L-11 

Benzo(b )fluoranthene B2L-ll 

Chloroform 06-05 

Di benz( a,h )anthracene B2L-ll 

Indeno( 1,2,3 -cd)pyrene B2L-11 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 06-05 

APL Plume Monitoring Oroundwater Sampling Results 

The APL Plume Flux Monitoring is conducted to ensure that Site-related contaminants are not 

discharging to the Niagara River Gorge at levels above the APL Flux Levels specified in the 

RR T. The RR T list of APL Plume Flux Monitoring Parameters was reduced when the 

Performance Monitoring Plan was approved. For example, chloroform was listed in the RRT, 

however, chloroform was never detected in Site monitoring above screening levels and was no 

longer considered a parameter of concern. There also have never been detections above 

screening levels in the APL Purge Wells (APWs) or the APL Flux Wells (AFWs) of the 

following parameters listed in the RRT: phenol, benzene, 2-chlorophenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol, 

and, 2,4,5-trichlorophenol. As a result, these parameters were also removed from the monitoring 

program. 

The Analytical Parameters for APL Flux Monitoring specified in the Performance Monitoring 

Plan are: TCDD, PCBs as Arochlor 1248, and, hexachlorocyclohexanes and Mirex (pesticides). 

None of the APL plume flux parameters was detected above their respective reporting levels in 

the 2011 sampling. As a result, OCC was not required to calculate the flux to the Niagara River. 

Figure 7 shows the locations of the APL Flux Monitoring Wells. The following table presents 

the results from the most recent composite sampling event from the AFW wells. 

APL Flux Monitorin~ Wells Composite Sampling 

Parameter I Units I Reporting AFW Composite 

Level Sample 12/19/11 

PCBs , 

Pentachlorobiphenyl I f.tg/L 11 0.20U 

Tetrachlorobiphenyl I f.tg/L 11 0.20U 

-15-
1 Ilg/L Ilg/L 1 0.098 U 

Total PCBs Ilg/L -- 0.20 U 

Pesticides 

alpha-BHC Ilg/L 1 0.050 U 

beta-BHC Ilg/L 1 0.050 U 

delta-BHC Ilg/L 1 0.050 U 

gamma-Chlordane Ilg/L 1 0.050 U 

Mirex Ilg/L 1 

Dioxins }0 

FD Fe( HY'% i 

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin pg/L 500 0.050 U 

Notes: 

BHC Benzene Hexachloride 

Ilg/L micrograms per liter 

pg/L picograms per liter 

-- No reporting level established 

U Non-detect at associated value 

Bloody Run Creek Monitoring Program 

The Bloody Run is monitored every 5 years. The most recent sampling event was conducted in 

2011. Analyses included VOCs, SVOCs, and organic acids. A review of the 2011 Bloody Run 

sampling event data indicates that one parameter, chlorendic acid, exceeded its screening level of 

0.05 mg/L. Chlorendic acid was detected in three wells (BR-2, BR-3, and BR-4) at 0.34 mg/L, 

0.18 mg/L, and, 0.27 mg/L respectively. These concentrations of chlorendic acid do not pose an 

unacceptable risk. 

Community Monitoring Program 

The Community Monitoring Program includes the Gorge Face Program, the APL Flux 

Monitoring Program and the Residential Community Monitoring Program. 

Niagara Gorge Face Program 

The Gorge Face Program includes bianuual inspection of the Niagara Gorge. These inspections 

are documented with photographs and a report issued by OCe. Conditions in the Niagara Gorge 

have remained stable over the past decade. 

The 2011 Biennial Gorge Face Seep Survey of seeps and culverts located along accessible 

pathways along the Niagara Gorge between the New York Power Authority (NYPA) fence on 

the Lower Access Road and the Garfield A venue Outfall Sewer was conducted by ConestogaRovers & Associates (CRA), along with representatives from acc, EPA, NYSDEC and 

NYSDOH. The purpose of the survey is to monitor the status of previously identified seeps/wet 

areas and to identify new flowing seeps/wet areas. This was the second biennial survey 

conducted since August 2006. 

-16-
A total of 29 seep locations and eight culverts, as well as the Garfield Street Outfall Sewer and 

the Bloody Run outlet (presented in Figure 19), were visited during the survey and inspected for 

flow and exposed wet areas. Many of the seeps were flowing and their condition was unchanged 

as compared to the 2009 survey. Several seeps appeared to have dried up. There was heavy 

vegetation and no standing water in the culverts. The Bloody Run outlet had a steady rapid flow 

(approximately 30 GPM) and was heavily vegetated. The fence was in place and in good 

condition. 

The seeps are no longer sampled since the analytical results of the previous several decades of 

surveys reported all non-detect concentrations and no chemical odors were detected during the 

survey. As a result, no recommendations were identified. The next seep survey will be 

conducted during the summer of 20 13. 

The APL Flux Monitoring Program ensures that the mass loading of Site-related contaminants to 

the Niagara River is below the Flux Action Level of documented in the RRT. The loading to the 

Niagara River has consistently been several orders of magnitude below the Flux Action Level. 

The Residential Community Program ensures residents are not exposed to Site-related 

groundwater or soil vapors. The residential monitoring wells have a vertical hydraulic gradient 

and site contaminants have never been detected in these wells. The data collected have 

demonstrated that the groundwater flow is vertically downward in the nearby community. EPA 

and New York State review the analytical results from sampling of these wells to ensure the 

community is being protected. Figure 8 shows the locations of the Community Monitoring 

Wells. 

Summary of Monitoring Data 

EPA utilized multiple lines of evidence to determine that site related contamination is being 

hydraulically contained. These multiple lines of evidence include: 

• The potentiometric surface maps for the eight monitored flow zones; 

• Groundwater quality data; 

• Groundwater flow budget and particle tracking analysis using a numerical groundwater 

flow model; 

• Vertical hydraulic gradient data; 

• Historical groundwater quality trends from the NAPL Performance Monitoring Wells; 

• Groundwater relative age dating based on sulfate concentrations; 

• Comparison of the chemistry of the seeps in the Niagara River gorge to the chemistry of 

the bedrock groundwater. 

Following all these lines of evidence, EPA concluded that the performance objectives of the 

remedy were maintained throughout the year. Based upon these results, the EDD remedy 

selected for the Site is deemed to be effective in protecting human health and the environment. 

Groundwater monitoring continues to demonstrate that hydraulic containment is being achieved 

at the Site. The results of the groundwater monitoring are presented in the Site annual reports 

which document containment. 

-17-
V. SUMMARY OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

OCC and CRA prepared the Hyde Park Collection and AP L Treatment System Operation and 

Maintenance Manual (O&M Manual) in December 2003, which was approved by EPA and 

NYSDEC. The O&M Manual was subsequently revised and incorporated into the Performance 

Monitoring Plan in 2006. 

The treatment system treats more than fifty million gallons of water each year and is monitored 

on a daily, weekly and quarterly basis to ensure compliance with the discharge requirements. 

There are nine locations in the system where water samples are collected to monitor system 

performance. The carbon beds at the Treatment Facility are routinely changed and regenerated. 

The sacrificial carbon beds, which cannot be regenerated, must also be changed and disposed. 

OCC must perform extensive well and pump maintenance, as NAPL often fouls wells and 

pumps. Annual inspections of the monitoring wells are conducted to ensure that the casings and 

caps are in good condition. 

VI. DEMONSTRATION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL 

During the remedial investigation, remedial design and remedial action stages of the project, 

quality assurance and quality control (QAlQC) for sampling and analysis were carried out in 

accordance with the QAlQC plans and QAlQC reports submitted to and approved by EPA and 

NYSDEC. The QAlQC plans were in conformance with EPA's QAlQC procedures and 

protocols. Therefore, EPA has determined that the analytical results are accurate to the degree 

necessary to assure satisfactory execution of the RD/RA consistent with the remedy selected by 

EP A. Remedial designs were reviewed and approved by EPA and NYSDEC. Oversight of the 

RA construction was provided by TAMS Consultants and NYSDEC by professional geologists 

and engineers licensed in New York State. 

The QAlQC program used throughout the RA was rigorous and in conformance with EPA and 

NYSDEC standards; therefore, EPA and NYSDEC have determined that all analytical results are 

accurate to the degree needed to assure satisfactory execution of the RA, in accordance with the 

EDD, RRT, RD plans and specifications, as modified by the as-built documentation. 

VII. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW 

The first five~year review for the Site was completed in September 1994, pursuant to OSWER 

Directive 9355.7-03B-P. This review, conducted before the remedial action (RA) had been 

completed and O&M, and monitoring activities had commenced, determined that the remedy as 

designed would be protective of human health and the environment when fully implemented. 

The remedial actions conducted by OCC, together with institutional controls had significantly 

reduced exposure to Site contaminants. 

-18-
The second five-year review for the Site was completed in September 2001. This review was 

also conducted before the RA was completed. That review concluded that although the RA was 

not complete, there were no human exposures to Site contaminants either through direct 

exposure or through drinking-water consumption. The reduction in exposure to Site 

contaminants because of groundwater containment, collection and treatment remedies 

implemented by OCC, together with site-access prevention, were protective of human health. 

The third five-year review was completed in September 2006. This review, conducted after the 

RA had been completed, and O&M and monitoring activities had commenced, concluded that 

the remedy was functioning as intended by the Site's decision documents and was protective of 

human health and the environment. The hydraulic containment stipulated in the RRT had been 

achieved. There were no exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks, and none 

were expected as long as the engineered controls currently in place continue to be properly 

operated, monitored, and maintained. 

The fourth five-year review was completed in September 2011. This review also concluded that 

the remedy at the Site protects human health and the environment. There are no exposure 

pathways that could result in unacceptable risks, and none are expected as long as the engineered 

controls currently in place continue to be properly operated, monitored, and maintained. 

The next five-year review will be completed by September 2016. 

VIII. SITE COMPLETION CRITERIA 

This Site meets all the site completion requirements of Close-Out Procedures for National 

Priorities List Sites (OSWER Directive 9320.2-22, May 2011). Specifically, the implemented 

remedy achieved the degree of cleanup specified in the EDD, RRT Amendment and ESD for all 

pathways of exposure. The remedy, remedial action objectives and associated cleanup goals are 

consistent with agency policy and guidance. No further Superfund response is needed to protect 

human health and the environment. 

-19-
IX. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Hyde Park Landfill Document Date 

Enforcement Decision Document 11/85 

Stipulation on Requisite Remedial Technology 05/86 

Intermediate and Deep Formations Study 09/90 

TCDD Bioaccumulation Study 09/91 

First Five-Year Review 09/96 

Second Five- Year Review 09/01 

Site Characterization Report: Revised Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization 02/02 

Site Characterization Report: Hydrologic Characterization 02/03 

Site Characterization Report: Groundwater Flow Model 06/03 

Site Characterization Report: Remedial Characterization Report 06/03 

Superfund Preliminary Close-out Report 07/03 

Major Ions Study 11/03 

Comprehensive Remedial Characterization Report 09/04 

Performance Monitoring Plan 07/06 

Third Five-Year Review 08/06 

2007 Quarterly Monitoring Reports 2007 

2007 Annual Report 2008 

2008 Quarterly Monitoring Reports 2008 

2008 Annual Report 2009 

2009 Quarterly Monitoring Reports 2009 

2009 Annual Report 2010 

2010 Quarterly Monitoring Reports 2010 

2010 Annual Report 2011 

2011 Quarterly Monitoring Reports 2011 

2011 Annual Report 2012 

Fourth Five-Year Review 09111 

Explanation of Significant Differences 05112 

-20-
#'---

Walter E. Mugdan, Director 

Emergency and Remedial Response Division 

-21-
HYDE PARK LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE 

FINAL CLOSE-OUT REPORT 

FIGURES 

Figure 1 — Site Location Map 

Figure 2 — Site Map 

Figure 3 — Source Control Well Locations 

Figure 4 — Overburden Barrier Containment System 

Figure 5 — Bedrock Purge Well Locations 

Figure 6 — Bloody Run Monitoring Well Locations 

Figure 7 — APL Flux Well Locations 

Figure 8 — Community Monitoring Well Locations 

Figure 9 — APL & NAPL Zones 

Figure 10 — Overburden Potentiometric Surface Map 

Figure 11 — Bedrock Potentiometric Surface Map FZ-01 

Figure 12 — Bedrock Potentiometric Surface Map FZ-02 

Figure 13 — Bedrock Potentiometric Surface Map FZ-04 

Figure 14 — Bedrock Potentiometric Surface Map FZ-05 

Figure 15 — Bedrock Potentiometric Surface Map FZ-06 

Figure 16 — Bedrock Potentiometric Surface Map FZ-07 

Figure 17 — Bedrock Potentiometric Surface Map FZ-09 

Figure 18 — Bedrock Potentiometric Surface Map FZ-11 

Figure 19 — Niagara Gorge Seep & Culvert Locations 

 
FIGURE 1 

FIGURE 2 

FIGURE 3 

FIGURE 4 

FIGURE 5 

FIGURE 6 

FIGURE 7 

FIGURE 8 

FIGURE 9 

FIGURE 10 

FIGURE 11 

FIGURE 12 

FIGURE 13 

FIGURE 14 

FIGURE 15 

FIGURE 16 

FIGURE 17 

FIGURE 18 

FIGURE 19 

FIGURE 20 
SITE

figure 1

SITE LOCATION

HYDE PARK LANDFILL SITE

GLENN SPRINGS HOLDINGS, INC.

01069-D23101(PRES008)GN-WA002 JUL 18/2012

0 1000 2000ft

USGS QUADRANGLE MAPS;

NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK - ONTARIO, 1980

SOURCE:

LEWISTON, NEW YORK, 1980
0 150 300ft 0

LEGEND

SITE BOUNDARY

figure 2

SITE LOCATION

HYDE PARK LANDFILL SITE

GLENN SPRINGS HOLDINGS, INC.

01069-D23101(PRES008)GN-WA001 JUL 18/2012
~~T 

\ /f \ \ lr \' ""1-, \ \ I; 

SHERMAN AVENUe LEGEND 

~. '-~ SWALE 

Gi~EJF' BROS \ 

\ !! r 

\ '* l' \ \ I' /' 

" . '" 

'''',''EY --·····-········-A-'75iJJE,l\.. _=.' \ \, / ' .. '" I~" , ~., -+-' . ~ '" '''''' """ _, .. "" 

, ~~ fjcKk, \ \---i<~, ~F ',~ -'T~-, '''' '~-;-''''+-, , _____ ,,-:'~ ",;;,,~: ",-c'A""~"f' ' • " A- '___ x..., ""'N v, N , 

' k0.i

r<::7I I f \ \ % \ /- -----5;, .. .... ACCE --s'''RilJiV .<J _ "'" -, .''''~''::o-''''c--.7 ~ __ ~"_" .. ~=-.-.... ' ", F

i

'~.. , L--=_ N""-___ 'I" .,,' _.. .. " *'- , ---.-..... - -', \ X ... " 

--'" =, \ , ~': 'ri"". , b..()i \\ ... ~.' .-' i!bJ '--, 

i 

X POWER TOWER 

1 RAILWAY 

• SC-2 SOURCE CONTROL WELL o 150 

• o EW-2 LANDFILL MONITORING WELL 

300ft 

"', , " \ , , U , ". . '1'", t;:j-f'T- I \ , \ \ \-' V 'C=O' L" SC~ • o EW-2 . ® 

~. "" * \ \ '( HYDE P,iRK / I \ \ \r:=r-" . ~""'I' I. OEW-1. SC-1 , At-.JDFiLL 

"" , , , .' . ~~ I \ \ '! "' W~ ~ ~! r , \ \' 1c\-*1 0W35"" OEW-3 OEW4 OEW~. OE \ I it-!- i.' , \ " C=;:]" Sc.3t t SC4 tsc~ , 

G/'f II I .(,.......'1' 

if.l / \\ \ t' OEW.7. SC·' ,_.AC~..-.c I '~CL* 

!! \ \ D I X • OW3""' -,* 

'" I / . \ ~*" , .. , 

{,e,;.. I \ ' , , 

"', 

~, ~ J '# ,. ""_".' j-j--------! , , , 'ob" , ", c, 

! I )( \ \ ~ ~ , .,.~_ X X ., , ~ __ t 

/ " * "",.,,,!,~ ''''''...,. r' , ! 

"--.. 

'" , '"" 

"'-

T 

t 

1 

I 

! . ------.. -_.- \ ,\" -. --, --'~.:.~ . - -- " 1" ---·· .. ···-· .. ·----===~?t--=,-r. \.\ r , i =s ~ __ . A/:" 

"--" I I \ \ f1 1~ f' .. " .. ,. . i -'C", 

~~:?::..,j \. I'I. \\ U [j'i~ L T"MCER,~:;:. rJ~.-r-I.ffl '. FIGURE 3 ! ./.--' / r \ \' I, I\ \ " \ <T"1 L-.....l _ _ ., , 'r' ' " [? " Ii * 

/ /~/ I' \\ ~ II i LOCATIONS 

/ I I I \ I OL SYSTEM WE~NDFILL SITE 

~ 

\ ! I" L.-,~'t [ SOURCE CONTR HYDE PAR~OLDINGS, INC* 

\ ! '\ \ 1 GLENN SPR~~a;!IliFalls, New Yon 

\ l \ 

I 

'-

NOTE: 

SITE BENCHMARK IS A P.K. NAIL SET IN THE EAST FACE 

OF A POWER POLE LOCATED AT THE WEST END OFTHE EXISTING 

HYDE PARK LANDFILL, ELEVATION" 612.77. DATUM NOT VERIFIED. 

I *' I 

01069-D23101(SOSAD003)GN-WA001 FEB 3/2012 
4 

100 

SHERMAN A VENUE 

OMW-B. 

OMW-5 

• 

MH25 

LEGEND 

- - --- - LIMITS OF LANDFILL 

OLD COLLECTION TILE 

GREiF BROS OVERBURDEN BARRIER COLLECTION SYSTIEM 

• MH5 • MH23 COLLECTION TILE MANHOLE 

• WW "A" . WW "C"COLLECTION TILE WET WELL 

- ------. .. ---- SWALE 

MH24 

FENCE 

~ RAILWAY ____ OMW-3 

~ ~ ~~MH23 .OMW-4 OVERBURDEN MONITORING WELL 

[8J J .,( \ \ ~ --- _.. /' IIC,,/ -____... __________ _____ ......... TOWN OF LEWISTON 

MH16 MH15 t &;3 TOWN OF N!AGARA 

MH12 ____ ~ MH11 

MH10 ® MH20 

HYDE PARK LANDFILL 

" MHl ~H2 • MH3 \. MH4 , \ P \ OMW~ 12R * . ..... ,-- ~ ;:::- MH31 MH32 'MH5 MH6 ( 

rx:+ 11\', \ Ii· OMW-11R _OM~-1~R ~ ~ 

\\ /-----~ \ 

,/// .-I-I \ // /// \ \ /' \ \ 

( \ \ 

I i / 

@ 

/ 

I 

01069-D23101(SOSAD003)GN·WA002 FEB 312012 

("'~~ .' .MH35 

OVERBURDEN BARRIER COLLECTION SYSTEM 

t FIGURE 4 

OVERBURDEN AND EXISTING BARRIER COLLECTION SYSTEMS 

HYDE PARK LANDFILL SITE 

GLENN SPRINGS HOLDINGS, INC. 

Niagara Falls, New Yo,*" 
~ ~ 

o 300 600ft 

I-U I 

LEGEND 

F2U BEDROCK FLOW ZONE 

til PIEZOMETER LOCATION 

2.4,5 FLOW ZONES INSTRUMENTED 

@APW-2 PURGE WELL 

) 

FIGURE 5 
/ 

~ 

", 

'" 

NOTES: 

1.) SITE BENCHMARK IS A P.K. NAIL SET IN THE EAST FACE 

OF A POWER POLE LOCATED AT THE WEST END OF THE EXISTING 

HYDE PARK LANDFILL, ELEVATION = 612.77. DATUM NOT VERIFIED. 

01069-D23101(SOSAD003)GN-WA004 FEB 3/2012 

" 

• BR-4 

BR-3 • 

BR-2 • • BR-1 

~ 

,. 

" 

-

o 100 300ft 

• BR-2 

LEGEND 

SWALE 

POWER TOWER 

RAILWAY 

BLOODY RUN 

MONITORING WELL 

FIGURE 6 

BLOODY RUN MONITORING WELL LOCATION 

HYDE PARK LANDFILL SITE 

GLENN SPRINGS HOLDINGS, INC. 

Niagara Fal/s, New York 
I 

o 300 600ft 

I I / 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

I 

/ 

/ 

~ 01069-023101 (SOSA0003)GN-WA005 FEB 3/2012 

'" 

/ 

I 

LEGEND 

SWALE • APW-1 APL PLUME PURGE WELL 

POWER TOWER • AFW-3U APL PLUME FLUX WELL 

RAILWAY 

@ 

FIGURE 7 

APL FLUX WELL LOCATIONS 

APL PLUME CONTAINMENT SYSTEM 

HYDE PARK LANDFILL SITE 

GLENN SPRINGS HOLDINGS, INC. 

Niagara Falls, New York 
v~'~ 0~ "" \J 

.., 

I 

CMW-90B 

I ~-:.; / , I 

,J 

~ 

/~ 

I~ ! ->! ler 

/

p" 

<' 

~ 

~.~ 

I <' ':' 

/1 ,/1 

IrII 

01069-023101 (SOSAD003)GN-WA006 FEB 3/2012 

I!'I ~-~-~ 

- --- - ..... ---~-

,,--

'..:.'-~-

----

\' 

- CMW-70B .. CMW-7SH 

\ 

l 

1 - "-- .--- CMW-8SH ----.-.r- . __ "N,-'YL\N'Jl~ __ ~ =---===:- ~."., °0B 

,-___ DF i ,",' '\~ :.,. LE 

// 

/ 

/ 

o 300 600ft 

LEGEND 

SWALE 

~ POWER TOWER 

eCMW-20B 

o Co B, 

RAILWAY 

COMMUNITY 

MONITORING WELL 

OPEN MANHOLE/CATCH BASIN 

OB OVERBURDEN 

SH 

SVP 

SHALLOW BEDROCK 

SOIL VAPOR PROBE 

FIGlJRE8 ' 

COMrV1l.JNITY MONITORING LOCATIONS 

HYDE PARK LANDFILL SITE 

GLENN SPRINGS HOLDINGS, INC. 

Niagara Falls, New York 
e F2U 

245 

600ft 

I 

" ,.,,! A.FW-1M I 

AFW.R 7Q 

n AF'N·IU 

• 

I 

BEDROCK FLOW ZONE 0IEZOMETER LOCATION 

FLOW ZONES iNSTRUMENTED 

® APW2 PURGE "VELL 

PIEZOME lE R WITK NO M 'L CONCENTRATIONS 

ADOVE HYDE PARK SCREENING LEVELS 

SUPERIMPOSED APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF 

NAPl IN BEDROC K FROM ALL FLOW ZONES 

BASED ON 2003 CHARACTERIZATION 

SUPERIMPOSED APPROXIMA lE EXTENT OF ilPL 

CDNC ENT RA T ION S ABOVE HYDE PARK 

SCREENING LEVELS IN BEDROCK FROM 

.ALL FLOW ZONES 

NOTES 

I FIGURE INCLUDES All FLOW lO"'ES 

2 MOST RECEN T DATA FOR EACH PIEZOMETER 

USED FOR FiGURE 

3 APt· AQUEOUS PH,.\SF lIQU,D 

4 NAP l - NON AQUEOUS PHASf:. UQUID 

I 

• ASP-' 

" . 

/ 

) 

AGVJ ·1U \(AGW Il SC 11 

ACAV·IM 1 .9 

2f4U4 5 ¥,"-1 .• 

F.;M .7. 

\ 

\ 

\ 

j 

, 

H2U}7 " 2M 

56. 

H2< 

FIGURE 9 

HYDE PARK LANDFILL NAPL AND APL ZONE BOUNDARIES 

HYDE PARK LANDFILL SITE 

GLENN SPRINGS HOLDINGS, INC. 

NiagaflJ Falls, New Yo'* 
Niagara River 

:l 

l Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. =n 

I 

'" (3 

"1 '" 

([ 

q! 

/!' 

$ 

u 

!{ 

f1 

J 

!>' 

o 

~ 

IL .-.~ .. ! iOO L 

~ 

........ Potentiometric Conlour 

(ftAMSL) 

........ Existing Barri er 

Collection System 

........ Overburden Barrier 

1$ 

It) 

DEUI<I.o\RI: B c:J 

DD 

~ 9j .¥ 

i Q UD 

/III' '1Ilr-lr-l \ 

LEW'ISTQN ) 

NIAGARA 

Collection System 

Well used 

• in contouring 

Well considered 

0 unreliable· data nol 

used in contouring 

OBCWS Wet Wells 

• pumped for recovery . 

Posted levels indicate 

th e pumping setpoints. 

Selpoint levels were 

used for contouring. 

Indicates the well is .0:525 dry: the posted value 

is the bottom of the 

well screened interval. 

Note: Data values may overtap. 

If illegible, refer to tabulated 

data in the report. 

Oft. 200ft. 

~ 400ft. 600ft. 

<) 

Overburden Potentiometric Surface December 2011 

4th Quarter Report 

Hyde Park Landfill Site 

Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. 

// 

Niagara Falls, New York 
FZ-01 

~ 

aXy Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc . 

. """'" 

---

---

o 

~ 

Potentiometric Contour 

(ftAMSL) 

2003 Delineation 

of NAPL Umts 

Flow Zone Subcrop 

Dewatered area of 

flow zone 

Piezometer used 

in contouring 

Piezometer considered 

unreliable· data not 

used in contouring 

Purge Well - data not 

used in contouring 

Tilde indicates the flow 

zone elevation in a 

dewatered piezometer or 

purge well. Contours 

"";thin the dewatered 

area are approximately 

the elevation of the 

flow zone. 

~ 

FIGURE 11 ' 

Potentiometric Surface December 2011 

4th Quarter Report 

Hyde Park Landfill Site 

Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. 

Niagara Falls, New York 
~ 

Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. 

,..."..... 

,..."..... 

till"'" 

*' • 

o 

Legend 

Potentiometric Contour 

(ftAMSL) 

2003 Delineation 

of NAPL Limits 

Flow Zone Subcrop 

Dewatered area of 

flow zone 

Piezometer used 

in contouring 

Piezometer considered 

unreliable - data n01 

used in contouring 

Purge Well - data not 

used in contouring 

Tilde indicates the flow 

zone elevation in a 

dewatered piezometer or 

purge well. Contours 

within the dewatered 

area are approximately 

the elevation of the 

flow zone. 

~ 

FIGURE 12 

FZ-02 Potentiometric Surface December 2011 

4th Quarter Report 

Hyde Park Landfill Site 

Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. 

Niagara Falls, New York 
~ 

Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. 

o 

-525 

1.ilglmd 

Potentiometric Contour 

(ftAMSL) 

2003 Delineation 

of NAPL Limits 

Flow Zone Subcrop 

Dewatered area of 

flow zone 

Piezometer used 

in contouring 

Piezometer considered 

unrel iable - data not 

used in contouring 

Purge Well · data not 

used in contouring 

Tilde indicates the flow 

zone elevation in a 

dewatered piezometer or 

purge well. Contours 

within the dewatered 

area are approximately 

the elevation of the 

flow zone. 

~ 

FIGURE 13 

FZ-04 Potentiometric Surface December 2011 

4th Quarter Report 

Hyde Park Landfill Site 

Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. 

Niagara Falls, New York 
~ 

Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. 

.....-.f-• .r..-.--~ 

7 

__ .~ .. rJto ~ 

-'--9--1 l.J __ J 

~ 

Potentiometric Contour 

(ftAMSL) 

2003 Delineation 

of NAPL Limits 

Flow Zone Subcrop 

Dewatered area of 

flow zone 

Piezometer used 

in contouring 

Piezometer considered 

unreliable - data not 

used in contouring 

Purge Well - data not 

used in contouring 

Tilde indicates the flow 

zone elevation in a 

dewatered piezometer or 

purge well. Contours 

within the dewatered 

area are approximately 

the elevation of the 

flow zone. 

FIGURE 14 

FZ-05 Potentiometric Surface December 2011 

4th Quarter Report 

Hyde Park Landfill Site 

Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. 

Niagara Falls, New York 
~ 

Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. 

....- ~ 

Potentiometric Contour 

(ftAMSL) 

2003 Delineation 

of NAPL Limits 

Flow Zone Subcrop 

Dewatered area of 

flow zone 

Piezometer used 

in contouring 

Piezometer considered 

unreliable - data not 

used in contouring 

Purge Well - data not 

used in contouring 

Tilde indicates the flow 

zone elevation in a 

dewatered piezometer or 

purge well. Contours 

within the dewatered 

area are approximately 

the elevation of the 

flow zone. 

~ 

FIGURE 15 

FZ-06 Potentiometric Surface Decembe( 20 11 

4th Quarter Report 

Hyde Park Landfill Site 

Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. 

Niagara Falls, New York 
/ 

Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. 

....... 

o 

o 

~ 

Potentiometric Contour 

(ftAMSL) 

2003 Delineation 

of NAPL Limits 

Flow Zone Subcrop 

Dewalered area of 

flow zone 

Piezometer used 

in contouring 

Piezometer considered 

unreliable - data not 

used in contouring 

Purge Well - data not 

used in contouring 

Tilde indicates the flow 

zone elevation in a 

dewatered piezometer or 

purge well. Contours 

within the dewalered 

area are approximately 

the elevation of the 

flow zone. 

~ 

FIGURE 16 

FZ-07 Potentiometric Surface December 2011 

4th Quarter Report 

Hyde Park Landfill Site 

Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. 

Niagara Falls, New York 
~ 

'- • TIJVN OF NM[JIltRA 

J5~'()9 

Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. 

...-

o 

-525 

1&wmd 

Potentiometric Contour 

(ftAMSL) 

2003 Delineation 

of NAPL Limits 

Flow Zone Subcrop 

Dewatered area of 

flow zone 

Piezometer used 

in contouring 

Piezometer considered 

unreliable - data not 

used in contouring 

Purge Well - data not 

used in contouring 

Tilde indicates the flow 

zone elevation in a 

dewatered piezometer or 

purge well. Contours 

within the dewatered 

area are approximately 

the elevation of the 

flow zone. 

~ 

FIGURE 17 

.. ~ ...... - . FZ-09 Potentiometric Surface December 2011 

4th Quarter Report 

Hyde Park Landfill Site 

Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. 

Niagara Falls, New York 
/ 

""'" DXY Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. 

""'" 

--

-- 01 

v 

WJlD.lI 

Potentiometric Contour 

(ftAMSL) 

2003 Delineation 

of NAPL Umits 

Flow Zone Subcrop Dewatered area of 

flow zone 

'L, \ '\,_._ "_ .... tl·T·· ' 

l r=,~--J v'" 'J( 

Piezometer used 

in contouring 

Piezometer considered 

unreliable· data not 

used in contouring 

on ... o(' ... " 't ..... _\ ~11 

. .._____ .. " ...... J ( '--- ") 

"-) o Purge Well 

- data not 

used in contouring 

FZ-11 

.~ 525 Tilde indicates the ftow 

zone elevation in a 

dewatered piezometer or 

purge well. Contours 

""";thin the dewatered 

area are approximately 

the elevation of the 

flow zone. 

~ 

FIGURE 18 

Potentiometric Surface December 2011 

4th Quarter Report 

Hyde Park Landfill Site 

Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. 

Niagara Falls, New York 
LEGEND 

o SEEP-02 SEEP LOCATION 

CULVERT 8 

() CULVERT LOCATION 

~ 

SOURCE: 

2006 AERIAL IMAGE FOR NIAGARA COUNTY, NEW YORK; STATE PLANE 

NEW YORK WEST, NAD83. IMAGE PROVIDED BY THE UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) AS PART 

OF THE NORTH AMERICAN IMAGE PROGRAM (NAIP). 

01069-023101 (SOSAD003)GN-WA008 MAR 29/2012 

'FIGURE 19 

SEEP LOCATIONS - OVERVIEW 

HYDE PARK LANDFILL SITE 

GLENN SPRINGS HOLDINGS, INC. 

Niagara Falls, New York